Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Version property (was: Let's bump Royale version to 1.0)

Don't need every SWC with a version. Just one for the whole SDK would be fine. I proposed just a single one stored in the core. We can modify the build file to just point to the single file instead of doing a path search. See the start of my example [1]. [1]

Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Version property (was: Let's bump Royale version to 1.0)

We can through an old mechanism that appears to be left from the Apache Flex side that does just this. Around line1192 of the root build.xml [1]. It specifically hunts down files called "Version.as" and uses RegEx to update the version number and build number. So when the SDK is built for

Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Version property (was: Let's bump Royale version to 1.0)

Well that would work in addition too, but not replace what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the SDK having a built in version. A version bead would be more building an app using the SDK and the app having it's own version. -Mark K On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 2:39 PM Piotr Zarzycki wrote: > >

Re: Should we change width/height to use EM instead PX?? (was: Re: Using em vs px)

As a comment on the helper functions, we could also just have something that does on the fly conversion. In other words if I say 300 pixels, I want it to translate that into EM / other unit in the background. The reason I bring that up is to allow exact PX still be used for the Flex / Air side

Re: Using em vs px (was. Re: Things that we still doesn't have and need in UIBase sizing)

Carlos, I can give it a shot when I'm at home. However, what about the direct width/height assignments. Should they do EM assignment too or should there be a new widthEM heightEM property added? -Mark K On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 6:58 AM Carlos Rovira wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > thanks for the

Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. project name

An installer type thing? -Mark K > Maybe it is possible to have just one package, but different install scripts > ? (full, swf only, js only ?) > For people like me (app developers) it makes sense. > However, I'm not sure that a no-component install will be of interest for > much people...

Re: [DISCUSS] project vs. project name

Wouldn't we just release an SDK instead? Like Royale SDK and skip the JS part? -Mark K On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Carlos Rovira wrote: > Hi, > > my opinion on this regard is that having many sub names (aka product names) > and packages will only confuse